Voting History of Incumbents on Key Issues


You decide for yourself, based on the record, which At-Large incumbent candidate is good for Littleton.

Dec. 13, 2005 – Study Session – Carol’s minutes*

Tom and Doug were the only 2 council members willing to support full coverage of all council meetings and all planning commission meetings on Channel 8. Conklin did not support the coverage.

On the police building, Conklin was willing to go back to the voters with the same plan but would make changes to the plan based on public input. She wanted to choreograph what they (the council) would say to the public. She said there could be no final plan until they educate the public and ask what they want.

Dec. 20, 2005 – Regular Meeting – Official minutes**

Clark moved and Kast seconded that the minutes of the study sessions or special meetings be more detailed. Conklin agreed with Pat Cronenberger “to continue with what was being done but have staff be a little more descriptive. She said Council was free to amend the minutes before the minutes were approved.” She voted no to the motion and it failed on a 3/3 vote.

Jan. 10, 2006 – Study Session – Carol’s minutes

During the study session on sewer rates, Clark pointed out a discrepancy in the beginning budget balances in the Red Oak Report. Conklin’s remark to him was, “What’s you point?” Clark told her he wanted a city manager that did his job by making certain the information presented to Council was correct. Conklin told him he was crossing the line. Clark continued but Conklin asked Taylor, “How much longer are we going to do this? Is this the proper forum for this?” Taylor allowed Clark to continue.

Jan. 21, 2006 – Retreat – Carol’s minutes

At a meeting held in Colorado Springs, Conklin said she wanted all audience members at their study sessions to introduce themselves.

Mar. 21, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Official minutes

On Littleton Village – Conklin had been a member of the Planning Commission for a number of years and stated that she “had never seen a development this good.” She also said that “cities were in a desperate struggle to get retail sales tax to fund services provided to citizens and that was why she would vote for the proposal.” (Littleton Village – 900 dwelling units with 540 called out for in the traffic study as rentals)

Clark was concerned about the 900 units – and the 540 rental units. The city did not need or could not tolerate a substantial increase in rental units. Whether the city became urbanized or stayed as a suburban community was up to Council. The COMPLAN was clear and the project did not comply with the vision in the COMPLAN. This was clearly not an employment center and the new development was not consistent with the existing development. It did not match the fundamental policies of the existing COMPLAN as well as the rental versus the purchase problem. Clark would be voting no. Conklin voted yes.

April 4, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Carol’s minutes taken from the official recording

Conklin on the sewer usage fees – we need to “trust the professionals.”

June 6, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Carol’s and the Official minutes

The Littleton Leadership Retreat Steering Committee – Amy Conklin is Treasurer

Clark had several questions about the COMPLAN revision process. In particular the use of Merilee Utter’s New Urbanism presentation to citizens at the public outreach meetings. Conklin told Clark that his questions had all been vetted out at the Littleton Leadership Retreat and that the steering committee for the Retreat picked Utter for their Retreat. Clark commented that the membership of the CAC and the attendees of the Retreat were a lot of the same people. Conklin said, “yes, we have lots of interested citizens.”

Jun. 13, 2006 – Study Session – Carol’s minutes

Conklin said TABOR was way too complex and they should just get rid of it. “Life is short and it is just not worth it.” She said they need to go for a de-Brucing but the public needs an education.

Conklin said she had received an email from a citizen that talked about how bad New Urbanism is and the council needs to be ready to refute the article.

June 20, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Official minutes

Regarding trash pick up at 5:48 am in a business location that backs up to residential and what could be done Conklin said, “:this was a complicated issue.”

July 5, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Carol’s minutes

Conklin’s in favor of using taxpayer’s money for a Western Welcome Week float. Clark voted no.

July 11, 2006 – Study Session – Carol’s minutes

On TABOR – Should they ask voters to eliminate the TABOR cap for a finite period or on a permanent basis?

Conklin – it is such a complicated subject.

Clark, in the conversation, mentioned the Water Fund and he was told by Taylor that they can’t spend the water fund. Clark told Taylor that the city was already spending the interest from the Water Fund. Conklin said they decided it was worth the risk.

Conklin said if we don’t de-Bruce we will not have services and she favored a permanent de-Brucing. She thought they had done a good job with taxpayer’s money in the past and therefore would do so in the future and she favored a permanent de-Brucing.

July 25, 2006 – District III Meeting – Carol’s minutes

At a District Meeting the question was asked why the Littleton Village Project was approved – 900 units – what were you thinking? Conklin responded by asking him if he didn’t hear the clamoring for a different kind of housing? That’s what people want. She said the traffic and drainage issues were resolved and it is hard to balance the desires of the community.

Aug 8, 2006 – Study Session – Carol’s minutes

On campaign finance Conklin had been suggesting a study session on the topic on several different occasions. At the meeting she said she had 3 concerns:

1. Whether or not unions and corporations can make contributions

2. Individual and PAC contribution limits per candidates

3. The timing of the financial reporting requirements

Conklin wanted to see individual campaign contributions limited because ½ of the contributions in the 2005 election were made by 2 individual donors. Regarding a proposed contribution limit she said she had lots of relatives and could “always get around it.” If the proposed limits were accepted Conklin suggested a penalty that would take the money from the offending candidate and distribute it equally among the other candidates.

August 15, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Official minutes and Carol’s minutes

Conklin thinks Council needs to start educating the public about the ballot issues for the upcoming election. Amendment 38, if passed would make elected officials personally and financially responsible for errors and fines up to $3,000. “I’m not running again if Amendment 38 passes.”

She also asked for CML information on Amendment 38 to be distributed to each council member and each board and commission member in their packets. (This led to a law suit filed against the City by Norm Brown in which he prevailed.)

Conklin voted to enter into an IGA for the TABOR question. Clark voted no.

August 22, 2006 – Study Session – Official minutes

Clark moved to eliminate the $35,000 dues for the annual CML dues from the 2007 budget. Conklin supported the expenditure.

Sept. 5, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Official minutes

Conklin moved the resolution referring a question regarding TABOR surplus funds for the 2006 and subsequent years to the voters of Littleton be approved. Conklin surveyed over 300 people and the responses showed an over-whelming support for a permanent de-TABOR cap removal. She felt a responsibility to put it on the ballot. She said without the ability to retain the revenues above the TABOR cap, many critical city services might be affected such as the Greater Littleton Youth Initiative and the Shopping Cart and Omnibus. The right to vote would protect the city from irresponsible spending.

Clark said to keep TABOR revenue without specifying what it is for would ultimately hurt the city in the long run. Clark opposed her motion.

Clark moved to place the question regarding the voter’s desire on the future population in 25 years to be A) approximately the same or B) significantly increased on the ballot as was suggested by Littleton citizen Carl Gottschall. Conklin seconded Pat Cronenberger’s motion to indefinitely postpone Clark’s motion and killing it.

Sept. 5, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Official minutes

Clark moved to accept $300.00 from the Littleton Examiner to televise the next 2 study sessions on Channel 8. Conklin opposed the motion and it failed on a 3/4 vote.

Conklin said people wanted to know what council thought about the state wide ballot issues.

October 3, 2006 – Regular meeting – Official minutes and Carol’s minutes

Clark asked for a copy of the draft audit letter that is sent to the council’s audit committee – Ostermiller and Conklin. Conklin asked Clark if there was some particular reason why he wanted a copy. He was denied a copy.

Conklin moved to create an ad-hoc Citizen’s Budget Advisory Committee. The motion passed 4/3 with Clark voting no.

Conklin seconded Taylor’s motion to take an official position on Ballot Questions 38 and 41. Clark thought it would be a good idea for the Council to stay out of the issues that did not impact the City.

Oct. 17, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Official minutes and Carol’s minutes

Clark moved to amend the budget to allow for the reallocation of funds to provide emergency services for Trail Mark. Conklin said there had to be a balance between public safety of all the residents and the public safety of just a few. She would not be supporting Clark’s amendment.

Mulvey moved and Clark seconded a motion to amend the budget to add $55,000 plus benefits for a full time producer for Channel 8.

Conklin asked Mulvey what cuts he would make to appropriate the money. Mulvey responded, when Jim Woods asked for $150,000 for salaries, no one said a word. Conklin said she had been a supporter of Channel 8 but it could not be balanced with cuts, she could not support his motion.

Resolution opposing Amendment 38 – Motion was made for the council to take no position on 38 and 41. Clark supported the motion and Conklin opposed.

Dec. 5, 2006 – Regular Meeting – Carol’s minutes

Clark moved to approve up to an additional $10,000 to cover the added work to the annual audit to audit the city attorney’s time sheets and to make sure the appropriate accounts were being charged because in his review of the professional and consulting line items it appeared that items were being charged in appropriately to that account. Those tasks went above and beyond the normal audit and would take additional money. Conklin opposed the motion.

Conklin announced she has come up with potential solution to 3 problems facing the city.

1. CBAC to study the TABOR excess revenues

2. Water Fund – it made sense to her to spend the money to develop a water conservation program.

3. Trail Mark – Council should carve out $250,000 from the budget to improve service to Trail Mark. They should cut $125,000 from the travel and training budget and $125,000 from the contingency fund. The fire chief could develop a solution and Conklin made the above a motion. The motion failed on a 3/5 vote with Clark voting for her motion.

Dec 12, 2006

Amy wrote the following in a memo about the CBAC.

Below is a copy of a memo from Amy Conklin dated 21 July 2005 when she originally brought up the idea of a Citizen’s Budget Advisory Committee. At that time she did not convince enough of the council members that it was a worthy idea. I have bolded portions of the memos that I found most revealing.

“The purpose of this memo is to encourage consideration of forming a Citizen’s Budget Advisory Committee (CBAC). To formulate a specific recommendation, I contacted CML to collect information on what other municipalities do and discussed the issue at length with Tom Ashburn who chairs Arapahoe County’s CBAC and has extensive experience with Aurora’s CBAC. I wasn’t able to collect enough information to determine what percentage of CML members have CBACs, but that may not be relevant to the issue. Littleton does what is best for Littleton regardless of what the majority of CML members do. What I was able to gather were descriptions of a few strategies used by other municipalities. The information I gathered is attached to this memo.

I suggest we consider forming a CBAC with the same mission as the Town of Snowmass CBAC; to review the proposed budget and advise City Council prior to approval. But, perhaps, we could expand the mission during the formation of the CBAC to follow what Wheat Ridge did. Specifically, the CBAC could provide recommendations on how to fund construction of a police facility and/or where to consider reducing expenditures and/or strategies to increase revenues. Undoubtedly, any CBAC formed in Littleton would develop it’s (sic) own recommendations, but the potential for positive outcomes is likely to be as great as it was for Wheat Ridge.

My discussion with Tom Ashburn was very illuminating into the practical application of a CBAC. His experience with Arapahoe County’s was an overall positive one. However his experience with Arapahoe County was that it is essential to be very clear about what is and is not the mission of the CBAC. His experience with Aurora was not entirely positive. In that case, the CBAC didn’t agree with the council, which is, of course, always a possibility. My feeling is that in the event that the CBAC and the council don’t agree, more education and information is needed and/or different leadership. One way to lessen that possibility for Littleton may be to make the CBAC ad hoc to start with and/or add a sunset date. A ‘trial’ if you will.

I recommend we consider selecting members for our CBAC in the same way we do for our other Board and Commissions. I won’t venture a guess as to staff commitment but Wheat Ridge and Snow Mass should be able to offer guidance. The advantages of expanding public awareness about the City’s financial pressures, of making our budget process even more transparent, and of creating the potential for positive synergy in solving the City’s looming financial woes outweigh the potential risks. Unfortunately, I am dumping this memo and running off to Europe but will be available to discuss it with anyone who has questions, concerns, or comments after the 11th of August. I’ll bring this up on August 16th and ask that the topic be included in our budget discussions scheduled for August 22nd and 23rd. Thank-you for your consideration.”

Jan. 16, 2007 – Regular Meeting – Carol’s minutes

An ordinance on second reading was passed on a 4 to 2 vote (Clark and Kast dissenting) that approved the application for the “property located at 2589 W Main Street (Main Street Grill) into the Main Street Historic District” (MSHD). What was unusual about this application is that the applicant wanted the approval provided that the ordinance included a provision that would allow for the total demolition of the building currently on the lot. As Doug Clark said they were approving the historic status for the “dirt” under the current building which he found absurd. He was told that the building did not have a lot of historic integrity. He also did not like the idea that the buildings are being made to look alike. He was all for “preservation” but what they are doing is “homogenization.” He would prefer a diversified look in downtown Littleton. Conklin supported the designation of the historic dirt.

Jan. 30, 2007 – Official Minutes

Conklin’s comments about Wal-Mart – Because of her nine years of experience with the Planning Commission, she came prepared with an open mind, listened carefully and made a decision based on the facts. Nothing was predetermined. The question was not – was Wal-Mart a good company, the question was – was this a good site for a big box. It was a good site for big box. It was a land use decision and not a referendum on Wal-Mart. Then Conklin proceeded to read a prepared statement why she supported the rezoning.

Other comments made by Conklin

Wal-Mart’s contribution to traffic on Santa Fe would be insignificant. The residents of Meadow Brook would benefit by getting a traffic light.

No one from Wolhurst Landing complained about Aspen Grove.

The city already had big boxes and there had not been any large increase in crime.

Council Member Conklin said many who spoke urged her to act like a representative and vote for what the majority of the citizens wanted and the letters were running 10 to 1 in favor of Wal-Mart. She concluded this was a good site for a big box store but smart people could review the same information and reach different conclusions.

Jan. 30, 2007 – Regular Meeting – Final decision on Wal-Mart – Carol’s minutes

Conklin said she has been wrestling with this issue and she knows she will loose some friends over her vote. She observed that for many this was their first interaction with their city government and she hoped it would not be their last. She came into the hearings with an open mind and nothing has been pre-determined. The question is not whether or not Wal-Mart is a good company. The question is – is this a good site for a big box. It is an excellent site. It is a land use decision. We have codes to control noise and light pollution. The water quality pond is a real boon to the park and will improve the habitat. Wal-Mart will have very little impact on traffic on Santa Fe Drive. Meadowbrook will get a traffic light that will be good for them. Wolhurst Landing is right next to Aspen Grove and there have been no complaints. For many people this is about Wal-Mart. When Aspen Grove was before council only 9 people came to the hearing. One was in support and 8 opposed. When Denver Seminary came to council no one came to the hearing. The statements made that the city council was greedy were particularly offensive to her. Without the TABOR override the city might not be able to keep some of the revenue generated by Wal-Mart. We need the shopping opportunities. This is a property rights issue – where are my Libertarian friends – they are mute. I have tried to do my best in making a good decision for the majority of Littleton.

Clark said the applicant’s proposal does not comply with the zoning criteria and a no vote is in order. They are trying to put 10 pounds of Wal-Mart on a 5 pound lot. The proposal does not meet the minimum open space standards. It does not meet the Santa Fe Corridor standards. It can’t meet the parking standards so we have to change them. We have altered the meaning of open space. It doesn’t meet the Complan. The Complan states that this area should provide high quality employment use such as hotels, motels, and research facilities – this does not fit – when we take our land and convert it to retail use we have taken away the opportunity to grow high quality jobs. There is too much retail in Littleton already. We are ignoring our own zoning regulations to make this work. The 23 acres needs to be 27.

Feb. 6, 2007 – Carol’s minutes

Conklin thought it would be an intimidating process for the candidate’s (for Cronenberger’s vacated seat) interviews to be televised on Channel 8. She would need time to think about the suggestion.

Conklin explained that it had always been her intent and desire to refer the Wal-Mart issue to the voters. She was going to make a motion to do that but upon research, that would not be a wise move because it would violate the city’s process. (Conklin called an executive session to see if she could make this happen – she did not have the nerve to do this in a public session where we could hear the discussion. An attempt on Conklin’s part to shirk her responsibility as an elected official. She didn’t want to have to vote on the rezoning – she wanted to skirt the decision and pawn it off on the public.)

Feb. 2, 2007 – Retreat – Carol’s minutes

Conklin wanted to talk about the elephant in the room – annexation. It is what I want to talk about. (Sterling Ranch is her target.)

Items of interest for future study sessions –


  • Shadow Development – The city would approach the owner of a decaying shopping center and the city would rezone the property for them.

This topic created a short discussion on what council could and could not do. To change the uses on a piece of property is a legislative matter but to rezone is a “quasi-judicial” matter.

Woods said they could explore the subject and he didn’t know who suggested this to Amy, but…..

Conklin jumped in to say that there has been some work done on this already – the Planning Commission matrix.

Woods said they could show the perils and pitfalls. The Planning commission has latitude to talk about sites – they are only guidelines. The City Council is an approval authority and the bar is much higher for the council.

Conklin said she wanted to help the shopping center owners and wanted to put information together for them.

Berkowitz said it would require a number of executive sessions. The matter did not just involve the council and the shopping center owners – there are lots of people that live around the centers that have a stake in the discussion.

Subject was dropped.

Feb. 19, 2007 Special Meeting to Interview Candidates for Council Vacancy – Carol’s minutes

Candidates for the council vacancy were interviewed. After the interviews the council had to determine which candidate to appoint. Kast moved that each council member should vote for once candidate on a secret ballot. Conklin seconded her motion and a secret ballot was cast.

Feb. 20, 2007 Regular Meeting – Carol’s minutes

Trail Mark – John Ostermiller reported that after talking to Action Care about providing emergency care to Trail Mark it would only work if Action Care would dedicate an ambulance to the area which is very costly.

After some discussion about what to do for Trail Mark (much of it the same as before) Ostermiller said Trail Mark is not an urban area. There are 900 homes totally surrounded by open space and it will always be like that. It is out there by itself and they want urban services for the same price as the other residents of Littleton.

Clark asked, “What do we tell them.” The city knew Trail Mark was way out there when it was annexed. Littleton got the building use tax from Trail Mark. Council made a “not so wise decision” to annex Trail Mark, and another “not so good decision” to affirm the annexation. We are stuck with their bad decisions and we know what the alternatives are. “It’s a stall tactic.”

Ostermiller said they have medical services and most of the time it is pretty good. We were expecting 2,000 to 3,000 homes out there. Things have changed and 50 calls per year from Trail Mark make it pretty tough.

It was agreed to meet with the Trail Mark HOA and let them “educate” the council as to what the problem is. The Metro Fire District will be invited to the meeting.

Mar. 6, 2007 – Carol’s minutes

On the passage of Amendment 41 Conklin was asked why it was urgent for her to have a discussion on the impact of Amendment 41. Conklin said the Comcast reception at the CML conference might be a violation of 41 and no one could go to the THAC productions when they send council members free tickets.

Mar. 13, 2007 – Study Session – Carol’s minutes

On Amendment 41 – Conklin said the bottom line is that Amendment 41 is lousy law and the only good thing is that they can fix it for Littleton. Doug Clark said he agreed but he did not mind the intent of the law. The problem was in the implementation and he thinks the problems may be fixed by the legislature. He preferred to wait and see what happens – if HB1304 is killed then council can revisit the discussion.

Conklin said the council could fix it “why wait – we don’t have to wait.” Conklin said she did not want the legislature to legislate for her.

April 3, 2007 – Regular Meeting – Official Minutes

Mulvey moved that the city extend the contract now in effect with the current videographer to include Channel 8 broadcasts of all Littleton City Council meetings, Littleton Planning Commission meetings, specifically including all study sessions including December 31, 2007. Each meeting broadcast shall be recorded and recordings placed in permanent city archives and in the Bemis Public Library.

Conklin had been working to develop a reasonable and efficient proposal with two different groups. She was totally in support of the goal.

Kast moved to table the discussion to June 19th – Conklin seconded her motion.

July 3, 2007 – Regular Council Meeting – Carol’s minutes

Conklin moved to allocate $25,000 for Channel 8 – $12,000 to stream all the council meetings, $8,400 for a videographer and $3,600 for misc. other video purposed. Stahlman seconded.

Clark thought it only made sense to pay the flat rate if they were to cover more meetings and it was a shame that the study sessions were not going to be televised. He offered an amendment to Conklin’s motion to use the PEG money to equip the community room. He did not get a second.

Conklin’s motion passed 6/1.

Clark offered a motion to use the PEG money to equip the community room. Conklin said she was not opposed to the idea but would not support his motion until the council discussed their goals for the study sessions. Clark said the council had a legal opinion that the PEG money had to be spent or it would have to be refunded back to the subscribers. He moved that they waive the attorney/client privilege to so they could discuss the matter. His motion failed on a ¾ vote with Conklin in opposition. Clark’s main motion failed on a 2/5 vote with Conklin again in opposition.

July 10, 2007

Memo from Conklin to staff and other council members.

The purpose of this memo is to request we consider embarking on an extensive, exhaustive, aggressive and comprehensive public outreach effort to educate and engage our electorate. The recent vote on the Wal-Mart rezone, combined with the defeat of the last 2 ballot issues, alludes to the potential that there may be a disconnect between the information we consider and the information citizens receive. The issues we deal with are complicated and it takes effort to become educated about all the considerations included in our deliberations. I believe many of our citizens are hungry to understand better the work of the council and help us form a vision for Littleton’s future.

To that end, I request we consider the following.

  1. Vote for my motion on Channel 8.
  2. Devote the front page of every issue of the Littleton Report for the next year to educating people on the complex issues facing Littleton. These include; all the issues the CAC has struggled with updating the ComPlan; the issues the CBAC has struggled with regarding the TABOR cap; the ongoing needs of the police department; Trailmark’s requests for shorter response times; and the long term budget challenges cities across the state are struggling with as a result of our dependency on sales taxes.
  3. Include in every issue of the Littleton Report for a year a survey question (s) about the issue discussed on the front page of the issue on a prepaid postage postcard.
  4. Devote every one of our district meetings and forums for the next year to educate attendees about the issues we describe in the Littleton Report.
  5. Ask our Boards and Commissions to devote a meeting to reviewing and providing feedback on the CBAC’s recommendation and the ComPlan revisions.
  6. Include a discussion of the complex issues in our breakfast meetings with community leaders and solicit their feedback.
  7. Prepare handouts/brochures on the complex issues described in the Littleton Report for display in the usual places (e.g. city hall, library).
  8. Seek out meetings held by other community groups and request we be allowed to present some or all of the issues and solicit feedback. These groups include: AARP; FOL/M; HOA’s; PTO’s; S. Metro Chamber of Commerce; Rotary; Kiwanis; Elks; HDLM; Sertoma; the faith community; Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
  9. Budget permitting, prepare video programs about the issues and stream them on our webpage.
  10. Other?

Thank-you for your consideration.

July 17, 2007 – Regular Meeting – Official Minutes

Debbie Brinkman addressed Conklin’s memo copied above. The purpose of her memo was to request that Council reconsider embarking on an extensive and comprehensive public outreach to educate and engage the electorate. Brinkman said the electorate had attended past meetings and were quite engaged………..council’s comments concerning efforts to educate the public because the Wal-Mart vote was not similar to their vote was a bit condescending.

Pavlos Stavropoulos also had concerns about Conklin’s memo and agreed with previous comments.

Dale Shields to the council that communications were not that bad, if citizens had questions, they could find answers. If Conklin wanted citizens to better understand the difficulties Council had dealing with complex issues, there would be a better understanding if the study sessions were televised and streamed.

July 17, 2007 – Regular Meeting – Carol’s minutes

Paul Bingham mentioned a memo written by Amy Conklin that was discussed at the last study session even though it was not on the agenda. He said, quoting from Conklin’s memo, there is a “disconnect” between Council and the citizens. Just because the citizens do not vote the way the Council votes doesn’t mean that the citizens do not understand the issue. He equated Conklin’s desire to “educate” the public to brainwashing. He said the citizens had a better understanding of the issues than Council. He agreed with Conklin’s desire for more communication and thought she should have voted for Channel 8.

Debbie Brinkman also mentioned the Conklin July 3rd memo about engaging the citizens in an aggressive outreach effort. Debbie said the citizens were quite engaged in January for a number of hours in a quasi-judicial meeting with the Council in addition to the 3 nights they spent at Planning Commission meetings and other Wal-Mart hosted meetings. She was insulted by Conklin’s memo saying that the citizens had to spend a considerable amount of resources, both in time and money, which was beyond what’s reasonable to be heard.

Efforts to improve communication is a two way street. Conklin wants to use the front page of the Littleton Report to “educate” the people on complex issues. How about a Citizen’s Forum on the inside as a way for citizens to share information? “We don’t need to be educated.”

Pavlos Stavropoulos agreed with Brinkman’s comments on the Conklin memo and would not repeat her remarks.

Dale Shields, commenting on the Conklin memo, said a lot of people know what she wrote in her memo – communication is working! He strongly agrees that there are difficult and complex issues in Littleton and the place where most of the deliberation takes place is in the study sessions. By the time a decision gets in front of Council at a Regular Meeting the decision is pretty much made. To open the dialog the Council should make it easier for the citizens to get information rather than harder.

Aug. 7, 2007 – Regular Meeting Official minutes

Conklin, along with Kast, voted No on the 1st reading of raising sewer tap fees to $2,500 for inside city and $3,000 for outside the city.

Conklin moved to create a separate enterprise fund (City of Littleton Paving and Street Enterprise) shielding those monies from the TABOR revenue cap. Clark voted no saying it was nothing more than an attempt to by-pass TABOR, it would not pave all the streets in Littleton and it did not designate a particular street. It was nothing more than something to launder money. Conklin’s motion failed 2/5

Mulvey moved and Clark seconded all city council meetings, including study sessions and CAC meetings, be held in the council chambers through Dec. 31, 2007 and the videographer contract be extended to include Channel 8 live broadcasts and video recordings of these meetings. His motion failed with Conklin and Stahlman both voting no.

Conklin thought a new council should make the decision and she wanted to have a study session on the examination of surveillance impact on conduct at the meetings along with goals for the study sessions.

Mulvey moved and Clark seconded a motion to televise the Liquor Authority meeting of August 8 to review the Safeway application to sell alcohol. Mulvey’s motion failed 3/4

with Conklin voting against it.

August 7, 2007 – Regular Meeting – Carol’s minutes

Tap Fees –

Clark moved that the tap fees be raised to $10,282. Clark’s motion failed on a 3/4 vote with Conklin voting with Clark.

Stahlman then moved to amend the Ordinance by changing the $2143 tap fee for inside users to $2500 and for the outside users an increase from $2570 to $3000.

Clark said he would vote for Stahlman’s amendment – not because he agreed with the methodology because he would not make the assumption that capacity is going up at the same rate as inflation. Any increase is better than no increase at all. He said Littleton lost 2.4 million dollars last year when they sold tap fees to Roxborough at a rate he thought was less than it should have been.

Taylor said he would not vote for Stahlman’s amendment – he was concerned that increasing the tap fees from 2006 to 2007 over $800 would negatively impact the ability to sell units for seniors and young families and will not benefit the city in the long run. Perhaps it is true that the tap fees have not gone up as they should have in the past.

Amendment passed on a 4/3 vote with Conklin, Taylor and Kast voting no.

Main motion to approve the Ordinance on first reading passed 5/2 with Conklin and Kast voting no.

Aug. 14, 2007 – Study Session – Carol’s minutes

Conklin, although she thought a new council should decide if study sessions are televised, thought the current council should discuss it so the next council would know what they thought. Clark thought it was strange that Conklin would approve a budget for a future council to follow but did not think it was appropriate for her to make a decision on televising study sessions.

Conklin said she was not clear on the distinction of a study session and a regular meeting. How is it different, she asked?

Conklin thought they would lose their creativity and brain storming if study sessions are televised. She said a former congressional aid thought it had corrupted the democratic process at the federal level. Conklin said people say things to her in private that they would not say in public – all private conversations would be gone.



Sept. 6, 2007


Doug Clark wrote in an email:

During the executive session last Tuesday Amy bludgeoned Tom with the recommendations of the committee saying basically “if you didn’t like their recommendation for a property tax mill levy decrease why didn’t you go down and tell them – they spent a lot of time reaching their conclusion.”

Amy Conklin wrote to Doug Clark regarding the above:

I’m sure you don’t want the proceeds of our executive sessions made public. That would not be in the city’s best interest. Amy “During the executive session last Tuesday Amy bludgeoned Tom with the recommendations of the committee saying basically “if you didn’t like their recommendation for a property tax mill levy decrease why didn’t you go down and tell them – they spent a lot of time reaching their conclusion.”

*Minutes written by Carol Brzeczek taken while in attendance. There are meetings that took place that Brzeczek’s minutes are the only record of what was said.

**These are the official minutes as taken from either the hard copy or from the City’s website.

One Response

  1. Thanks so much for this information. It was greatly appreciated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: